How toppers approached this question

Critically examine the 'in-house procedure' adopted by the Apex Court to inquire into allegations of misconduct against judges of constitutional courts in India.

How toppers built answers of this type: the structure spine and the moves they converged on. Aggregated across real past-paper answers for this paper and directive, not this one question, so no question-specific evidence is shown. No answer text is reproduced.

The topper method

Critically examine

The spine toppers built

Open
- Define the key term first
- Context-hook opening
Build
- Both sides before the verdict
- Numbered enumeration
- Directive-mirroring headers
Close
- Verdict conclusion
- Forward-looking close

Moves they converged on

Both sides before the verdict72% of answers
Weigh both sides before taking a stand.
Numbered enumeration69% of answers
Enumerate points as a numbered list.
Example as evidence63% of answers
Tag a concrete example explicitly as evidence.
Verdict conclusion60% of answers
End with a clear verdict.
Directive-mirroring headers58% of answers
Headers that mirror the question's directive.
Define the key term first55% of answers
Open by defining the central term.
Problems then remedies55% of answers
Pair each problem with a remedy.
Constitutional anchor46% of answers
Anchor the argument in an Article or provision.

Evidence toppers carried (per answer)

Examples ~2Current events ~1Institutions ~1Other anchors ~1Concepts ~1Principles ~1Judgments ~1Statutes ~1

GS2 · Critically examine: derived from 67 real past-paper answers: counts, not copied prose

Write your own answer to this question

Get it read and marked against the mains rubric, then see which of these moves you landed. No sign-up is needed.

Mark my answer free

Method is derived from real past-paper answers as anonymized aggregate signal. Construction moves and counts, never copied answer text.